0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:27 pm
Bill, I think these particular comments of yours deserve much more respect, repetition and emphasis.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
American people, like all people are good and bad. If you want to judge them as a group, judge them by the actions of the vast majority... not the isolated few. Those who constantly revert back to the deplorable actions of the isolated few to characterize the many are guilty of, you guessed it; anti-American bias. This tendency is uniformly frowned upon as it relates to pretty much every other group of people... but somehow, for some reason, some don't think America deserves the same courtesy.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
War is hell. When hundreds of thousands of individuals are engaged in a violent conflict, some of them are going to break the rules. Abuses of this kind will take place regardless of who the combatants are. When our soldiers do, it is a reflection of this simple truth, not the United States of America. How an individual chooses to portray it in relation to the U.S.; is a reflection of his or her own predisposition towards the United States of America. Entirely too often for my taste, said predisposition reflects an ANTI-AMERICAN BIAS...


This anti-American bias is a form of bigotry. It is bigotry when the characteristics of a minority of a group are alleged to be the characteristics of an entire group. It is bigotry when one expresses disagreement with another person's actions by slandering or libeling that person's intentions. It is bigotry when one frequently villifies the victim of terrorists but rarely villifies the terrorists.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:28 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll have to ask for some verification that the soldiers were just following orders Cyclop. All the information I've seen, including their own testimony, is that they were acting on their own.

No, we're not talking about 'stolen wallets' CI, but we're talking about accountability and culpability. You might be culpable in the theft of your customer's wallet if you failed to do a sufficient background on him when you hired him, but are you guilty as he is guilty? If soldiers violate orders and overstep their authority and break the rules/law/code or whatever, is it appropriate to court marshall the general?


The people who designed the psychological approach used in this torture, the people who ordered and provided the dog leads and collars to be used in the way they were, the people who decided that the prisoners would be kept naked and attacked with dogs, these were not the clowns in the photographs. The whole scandal goes much further, but a few scapegoats will be found. This will maybe assuage the American public that the matter is being properly dealt with. It doesn't appear to be.

It is important that it is, because you have to convince the arab "street", in the circumstances, the hardest audience in the world for the US. Otherwise the whole venture is at naught.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:30 pm
Do you have proof of that McTag? Or, like others, is this just what you want to believe?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:35 pm
Cyclo - Back in 1945, US soldiers shot more than 100 of Hitler's SS upon entering Dachau, they were so disgusted by what they found there. One of the stories I read about this incident implies their officers only made half-hearted attempts to stop them. To my knowledge, none of these men were ever prosecuted for this.

My point is that there are and have been these types of abuses in every war. What surprises me with more than 140,000 US soldiers serving in Iraq is NOT that Abu Ghraib happened, but that the instances of this type of abuse are so relatively FEW.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1048557#1048557
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:44 pm
Actually, that is what surprises me too, JW; situations where there is an inequity of power, especially involving young men, are likely to lead to abuses if we're not careful.

But your analogy does nothing to explain the fact that many of these abuses were ordered by members of military intelligence, and that is run by the boys at the top who needed that intelligence so damn bad that torture was considered okay.

Either the guys at the top ordered the abuses to happen, or they didn't set up a situation to keep such abuses from happening. Either way, punishing the soldiers only will leave those who are in charge unaccountable for their actions....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:45 pm
JustWonders wrote:
What surprises me with more than 140,000 US soldiers serving in Iraq is NOT that Abu Ghraib happened, but that the instances of this type of abuse are so relatively FEW.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1048557#1048557
Amen, sister-girl.
Realistic Vs. Idealistic
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:46 pm
One of the young men I talked to on furlough from Iraq told of one incident in which they came upon some insurgents--he doesn't know if they were Iraqis or outsiders--who were methodically torturing a couple of their prisoners by shooting off pieces of their body. One was a young girl. The insurgents dropped their weapons and had their hands in the air, but the American was so shaken and angered by the situation he leveled his rifle at the apparent 'leader' and was actually squeezing the trigger when the officer with his group stopped him. He honestly didn't know if he would have pulled the trigger. I had a hard time condemning him if he had.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:47 pm
Apparently it's idealistic to expect that US soldiers won't torture and abuse people... and that those running the army would go out of there way to make sure it didn't happen.

I'm okay with being idealistic, then. If realism=acceptance of barbarism (hey, it's going to happen no matter what, so who cares?), then you can keep your 'realism.'

Cheers

Oh yeah,

Ican Wrote
Quote:
This anti-American bias is a form of bigotry. It is bigotry when the characteristics of a minority of a group are alleged to be the characteristics of an entire group. It is bigotry when one expresses disagreement with another person's actions by slandering or libeling that person's intentions. It is bigotry when one frequently villifies the victim of terrorists but rarely villifies the terrorists.


Oh, get off it, why don't ya? You're better than this tiresome sh*t.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:48 pm
Just thinking here, you have to excuse me since I am a liberal and not used to thinking, anyway do any of you think a US soldier packing up his/her gear for a stint in a war zone (Iraq) would think to pack a dog leash?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:50 pm
Quote, "Nope, but most of the male members of my family have including my husband and my son. Some were officers. Some were grunts. And not one of them ever suggested that an officer should be court marshalled because some of the people under him did a court marshallable offense unless the officer failed to take appropriate action or participated in a cover up when the offense was discovered." You and your family members still don't understand military protocol.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:51 pm
JustWonders wrote:
My point is that there are and have been these types of abuses in every war.


I agree with that, precisely the reason I was against any armed invasion.

Leut. Calley and the Abu Ghraib perps had the bad fortune to be uncovered. The GI who shot the wounded man, he was filmed. Bad for him. How many others, away from the camera lens? Reason says, plenty more.

That's why it causes such despair when chickenhawk politicians, who took care never to serve their country in the armed forces, send their young men off to fight, to do their best, and their worst, in places like this.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:51 pm
But do Iraqis have dogs? Can you buy a dog leash at a pet store in Fallujahor Baghdad? Is there any evidence they packed them from here? It's all speculation, and the soldiers themselves said they acted on their own 'believing' they had consent from their superiors. Some of their superiors were demoted or reassigned for sure, as they had to be held accountable for the behavior of their subordinates. But court marshall? Come on. There is simply no proof for that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:53 pm
More proof exists than there did of WMD in Iraq, and that sure didn't stop us from invading. Why shouldn't an investigation go to the top? It's the same mode of thinking.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:53 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Cyclo - Back in 1945, US soldiers shot more than 100 of Hitler's SS upon entering Dachau, they were so disgusted by what they found there. One of the stories I read about this incident implies their officers only made half-hearted attempts to stop them. To my knowledge, none of these men were ever prosecuted for this.


Can We Handle the Truth?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:01 pm
Walter - I can handle the truth. I have no idea what I'd have done if I'd seen what the men saw in Dachau. Do you know what you'd have done?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:09 pm
Cyclop writes
Quote:
More proof exists than there did of WMD in Iraq, and that sure didn't stop us from invading. Why shouldn't an investigation go to the top? It's the same mode of thinking.


Exactly what proof is that Cyclop?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:11 pm
"Most people, for good reasons, don't want to hear the truth about the battlefield," said Shay, the psychiatrist. "You see good kids doing terrible things. Who wants to hear that stuff."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:16 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Walter - I can handle the truth. I have no idea what I'd have done if I'd seen what the men saw in Dachau. Do you know what you'd have done?


I have just copying the headline of that article, and not expressed any opinion.


I'm sure that I've made the acquaintance with more cruel criminals (and psychiatric ill persons) than most here, if not all.

But opposite to the US-soldiers entering Dachau camp, I knew in advance about that.


So, I really can't tell you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:19 pm
dys, That idea about good kids doing bad things have been proven by experiments at Stanford and Yale universities. People just like to keep their blinders on, because they can't handle the 'truth.'
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:21 pm
Quote:
Cyclop writes
Quote:
More proof exists than there did of WMD in Iraq, and that sure didn't stop us from invading. Why shouldn't an investigation go to the top? It's the same mode of thinking.


Exactly what proof is that Cyclop?


The fact that there was in fact Zero proof of WMD before the war. This has been bourne out by the simple fact that there were no WMD when we got there.

If there is even an IOTA of evidence that the abuses of prisoners were known about/ordered/not condemned by those at the top, it should be more than enough to launch an investigation. After all, less evidence was enough to launch a war!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/06/2025 at 01:03:59